Questions, Crony capitalism.

The Editor

Business Line

Dear Editor,

The questions areI am not writing this letter to be published, but  I am writing more because of the  questions asked by Ms.Aarati Krishnan are very relevant and  needs to be answered. 

1.    UB Holdings extended guarantees and collaterals worth Rs.8,800 Crore to associate firms. Is it done at fair value?

2.  Reliance infrastructure earned Rs.5900 Crore in revenues from EPC Contracts from group entities. Is the margin consitent with market trends are is it excessively loaded to boost the profits of the EPC arm at the cost of the consumer who has to pay costs to service the overvalued capital asset built using these “billing tactics”?

3.    JSW steel brought goods and services worth Rs.2,800.00 Crore from associates. Is it at fair value?

Why Business Line or some other journal or other magazine do an extensive investigative story on these stories and bring out the lacuna either in the reading of the law or the loop holes in the law or plain disobeyance / disregard of (for) law which has happened in these transactions.

You must in my opinion, dedicate a page in your paper once a week at least, dedicated to the issues that affect stakeholders interest through such manipulations of the existing guidelines by big corporates. Such informed discussions will help the Sr. Executives working in large organisations remind that they are not beyond scrutiny and run the risk of being exposed, even though they may believe in the false protection offered by the so called highly influential corporates. 

I am sure that some of the people who have spent time in Tihar from one of the corporates named in this article would agree with me.

With regards,

V.BALAKRISHNAN

Elections T20

Dear Editor,

Your leader rightfully has spotted the casual approach displayed by the political parties, in naming the candidates for individual constituency. While this can be partly explained as highlighted in your leader to the networking and highly interconnected communications blaze which can be launched by the parties, it does not take way the essential need of the voter to know adequately before the election date, the options before him.

One of the ways to ensure this is to have the filing of the nominations deadline almost 40 days ahead of the election date. Such an approach would make the candidates visible.

It is a fact that in a democratic environment and a free press, it is in this intervening period - between the nomination date and the date on which we cast the vote, the candidates are near “Naked” in the public eye. After that they are shrouded in secrecy and the law builds around them a fortress, which ordinary citizen cannot penetrate.

It is in the interest of our nation that these candidates are subject to close scrutiny for a given period of time before each  one of us exercise our franchise.

With regards,

V.BALAKRISHNAN

 

Democracy vs Majoritarian will

V.Balakrishnan No.19, Ist main RoadKarpagam Garden

AdyarChennai-600 020

Cell:98401-21596Mail:balakrishnanv@icloud.com

 

 

Dear Editor,

 

Sub: Democracy Versus majoritarian will

 

 

A series of articles in the lead page and your leader have started of an intense debate on the freedom of expression,freedom of speech as enshrined in our constitution. New insights, interpretations of the provisions have emerged from this intense discussions and informed articles, penned by qualified competent and experienced jurists, eminent lawyers and intellectuals.

 

One of the fundamental arguments, which have been missing in the debate, I thought, was the right of the every citizen ofto listen to divergent views and expressions as derived fromthe right to freedom of expression and speech of individuals.This I believe is embedded as an integral part of the freedom of expression which gives us as individuals “The Right to be exposed to speech and writings, new thoughts, ideologies, religions etc. The Majoritarian will assumes it has the right to suspend this essential right of every citizen of India which eventually would lead to a vacuum of new ideology and ideas.

 

This is highly objectionable and a collective approach is needed to present a new interpretation and get directions fromdemocratic institutions such as our apex Court to bring backthe rights of every citizen of India into normal parlance. Majoritarian will should not deny us, a citizen of India, right to listen and right to agree which a contrarian view and celebrate the Independence of India and every religion / ideology practiced here.

 

Thanking you,

 

 

 

 

V.BALAKRISHNAN

 

 

Fair Regulation.

V.Balakrishnan 19, First Main Road,

Karpgam Gardens, Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020

+91 9840121596

Dear Editor,

 

Sub: Fair Regulation

 

The leader in your paper today rightly stresses the need for fair’ regulators. It is verytimely. I am in total agreement with the stated opinion that the current decision of the regulator is a “Balanced Decision”. If they had taken narrow view they would haveto hold Tata Power responsible for the rash bidding adopted by them. Such an approach would have been counterproductive as in the total grid with operating capacities in excess of 178000 MW, we are currently adjudicating on the tariff of just8000 MW (including Adani Power) less than 2%While taking the deciiosn therefore they might have weighed and considered that giving an incentive of 52 paise for these plants, on a pooled basis will have very little impact on the pricing to the consumer.

 

At the same time, the assets under consideration namely Tata power and Adani Power are current state of the art plant with life span of 30 years plus from today and need to be encouraged.

 

Notwithstanding the above, considering the view of price increase being there theregulator has correctly, taken effort to offset its impact through tweaking some of the provisions by shifting from ‘availability’ to ‘Load factor’ and removed unnecessary comfort to the major utility operators. In sum the move has saved some plants, which were on the verge of shutdown and has paved the way for reducing the pooled cost.

 

With regards,

 

V.BALAKRISHNAN